NEW YORK--"Law-abiding citizens of the United States have the individual right to own a firearm," Dick Cheney (news - web sites) told the National Rifle Association's annual convention on April 17. Should the Democrats recapture the White House, Cheney warned, that right would be imperiled. "John Kerry (news - web sites)'s approach to the Second Amendment has been to regulate, regulate and then regulate some more." NRA first vice president Sandra Froman echoed Cheney's campaign pitch to gun owners: "There is no greater threat to gun ownership than John Kerry as president." If Kerry campaign officials thought their candidate's Vietnam resume or membership in the NRA--he enjoys hunting as much as any red-blooded American--would inoculate them on the gun issue, they were as badly deluded as the folks who thought Saddam had WMDs.

The polls are clear: The outcome of this year's presidential election hinges on the economy and the war in Iraq (news - web sites), not guns. And while most Americans believe that they enjoy the right to carry firearms, they also favor government regulation. Nevertheless, Kerry would be wise to break ranks with his party's liberal base by declaring his enthusiastic support for the Second Amendment.

A polarized electorate neatly divided between the two major parties has created a high-stakes political climate in which relatively low-stakes "values issues"--partial-birth abortion, flag burning, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance--may determine the outcome of such weightier matters as whether the United States ought to wage preemptive war. Had Al Gore (news - web sites) convinced 270 Floridians that he would have been more likely than Bush to allow them to keep their guns, after all, we wouldn't be facing a projected $6 trillion federal deficit.

Besides, abolishing handguns is a lost cause. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, roughly 70 million Americans own more than 200 million guns--with four to five million new weapons manufactured annually. Even if Congress authorizes police to break down every door in the country to confiscate them--a task our military can't carry out in occupied nations subject to martial law, like Afghanistan (news - web sites) or Iraq, let alone in Wyoming and New Jersey--the gun genie is never going to get stuffed back into the bottle.

The best argument for coming out as a pro-gun nut relates to the need for an adjustment to the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party. For too long, both parties have treated the Constitution like a Chinese menu. Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Democrats rail against the states rights expressed by the Tenth Amendment and absurdly argue that the placement of a comma reflects the founders' original intent to limit gun ownership to members of 18th century militias. Aside from its fundamental intellectual dishonesty, our politicians' take-some-leave-others attitude deviates from most citizens' belief that every section of the Constitution holds equal weight.

Constitutional purism lies at the heart of libertarianism, one of the three main strains of American political thought--the big ideas that unite the overwhelming majority of American voters no matter where they live or how they vote. Two other primary impulses, liberal compassion and fiscal conservatism, also resonate with the electorate. (Bush sold himself as a "compassionate conservative" to co-opt the Democrats on caring; Clinton balanced the budget to steal away GOP prudence.) A party capable of synthesizing these three grounding impulses could form a virtually invincible majority for decades to come. And Democrats, forced into becoming the de facto party of fiscal conservatism, are currently in a better position than Republicans to adjust to such a majoritarian strategy.

Democrats, however, still need to make the libertarian case. That's where guns come in. Accepting and promising to defend the Constitution as a whole, including the Second Amendment, could jumpstart the return of the American left from the fringe to the mainstream. Kerry's endorsement of gun rights would not only neutralize a key GOP values issue; it would serve as a cultural signifier that he doesn't view hunters and other gun aficionados with (as Democratic political consultant David Sweet put it) "an urban, sophisticated mentality that sneers at their way of life."

(Ted Rall is the author of "Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back From the Right," coming next week from Soft Skull Press. Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)

I hate to say it, but this scares me. Because, I would hate to have to back a Democrat. Luckily though, Kerry won't do it. Imagine the caos among the Democratic party Leadership if Kerry came out and said he didn't support extending the AWB.

For what's it's worth, I liked the way the guy compared the Constitution to a Chinese Menu. I guess that makes the 2nd Ammendment my Sweet and Sour Chicken.

greg

If you enjoyed reading about "Scary Op/Ed piece on Yahoo." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

seeker_two

May 15, 2004, 08:27 AM

I don't think we'll have to worry about a pro-gun Kerry anytime soon...unless they're all his guns...:banghead:

Ted Rall is the author of "Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back From the Right," coming next week from Soft Skull Press.

Kinda says it all, doesn't it...:p

Foreign Devil

May 15, 2004, 08:38 AM

Why would that be scary? If both major parties were against gun control than we could spend our time debating other issues.

StuporDave

May 15, 2004, 08:49 AM

Except that if Kerry were to suddenly decide he's pro-gun, and was elected, he'd do one of his flip-flops on the issue right after inauguration day.

Hal

May 15, 2004, 09:02 AM

I hate to say it, but this scares me. Because, I would hate to have to back a Democrat

Something to think about....

1968, the pro 2nd Democrat vs the anti Republican.

1960, the pro gun Democrat vs the anti Republican.

Don of Kalifornia

May 15, 2004, 11:38 AM

Back in 1960 and 1968, the dems were much more of a blue collar pro-labor group. However after 68, the party was high jacked by the likes of Kerry and Hillary, over the Vietnam war (which is why it is so important to support the Iraq war now). The truth is Nixon did the Republicians so much damage, with his 'war on crime, war on drugs' that the conservative movement has still not totally recovered (we'd be in real bad shape if it wasn't for Mr. Reagan).

One dem I would surely support as president would be Zel Miller, how ever he wants to retire from the Senate. There are a few good dems in there hanging on, but they get no support from their party, and only a bit from labor.

manwithoutahome

May 15, 2004, 12:39 PM

I've voted for democrats before, over republicans, due to they were pro-gun and pro-2nd amendment. I look at both sides and vote for those who will do their job correctly.

I will admit, if Kerry would have came out and said that he was pro-gun, wanted the AWB to expire and would do an order if it was extented to make the law null and void, etc.. I would be behind him 100%.

Now days, the only difference between the parties is one group is heading toward tyranny at 100mph and the other is obeying the speed limit of 65mph.

Both parties are using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a menu, where they pick and chose which Right they like and which ones to circumvent or destroy. If the Constitution were followed this day to the letter, people on both sides would be tried for treason and rightfully so.

And the only answers to the economy, the war on terror are very simple:

economy: Go back to a free capitalist society without governmnet regulation where it's not needed. Let the people keep their money, ALL of their money with maybe a flat tax of 10% across the board with NO hidden taxes, those things they call "fees".

war on terror: Soldiers are commanded by their generals and are free to fight the war without government regulation and at home, just give the people the Right back to keep and bear arms.

As for the social problems, let parents parent without fear of child abuse if they chose to use the rod on the spoiled child. If the parents won't parent, or can't, then let someone who can do it. Leave charity up to those who do it better then the government, which are mainly the chruches and the neighborhood.

I truly believe that if we went back to the heart and soul of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, without any government regulation in anything except for national security outside of our borders, then America would be a lot better place and the people happier.

As someone once told me when I was down and whinning about being unhappy and it was everyone elses fault:

The Constitution states that you have the Right to pursue happiness, it doesn't give you the Right to happiness.

M.

esheato

May 15, 2004, 12:42 PM

Ted Rall is the same character that wrote that horrible attack on Pat Tillman. He is severely detached from reality and his opinion is clearly the words of a lunatic. Hopefully if we ignore him, he'll just go away. ;)

Ed

SAG0282

May 15, 2004, 01:18 PM

Yeah I was gonna say........I saw Rall on Hannity and Colmes, and despite the relative logic of this article, I dislike Rall quite intensely. I'm with the other guy.....we should just ignore Rall and hope he goes away.

Antlurz

May 15, 2004, 01:35 PM

Rall's tirade about Tillman is/was FAR more typcial of his mindset than any piece of writing he comes up with from time to time.

Ron

kbr80

May 15, 2004, 01:42 PM

Now days, the only difference between the parties is one group is heading toward tyranny at 100mph and the other is obeying the speed limit of 65mph.

Well said, this country is going to hell, lets take the long ride, not the hell express.

The_Antibubba

May 15, 2004, 01:52 PM

If Kerry were to come out as pro-RKBA, who would, for one second, believe it? :rolleyes:

Desertdog

May 15, 2004, 02:10 PM

I've voted for democrats before, over republicans, due to they were pro-gun and pro-2nd amendment.
The question that comes to my mind is; what was their voting record after being elected?
The last time I voted for a Democrat he said everything that I believed in. and then voted against everything I believed in.

veloce851

May 15, 2004, 02:27 PM

I don't think we'll have to worry about a pro-gun Kerry anytime soon...unless they're all his guns...

Kerry doesn't own any guns.. they are his families.

I actually voted for Kerry... before I voted against him.
:rolleyes:

Mulliga

May 15, 2004, 04:07 PM

Besides, abolishing handguns is a lost cause.

Er, who said anything about banning handguns?:confused: Apparently Mr. Rall doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut regarding his true gun-banning intentions. If they can get a ban on handguns passed in these United States, it will indeed be TEOTWAWKI.

This guy is a waste of time.

Don Gwinn

May 16, 2004, 01:21 AM

It's not scary because of Democrats. Yesterday a Democrat from this area made an impassioned speech in defense of self-defense and pro-defense legislation our nutty Democrat Governor is threatening to veto.

It's scary because Ted Rall is a certifiable nut. He's like Ann Coulter without the careful vetting and fact-checking, or Molly Ivins without the folksy humor. Ted Rall is the guy who wrote a column about how the Afghan people have so much to teach us because they, despite tribal differences, are the most tolerant and loving people ever, while Americans are racists who hate pretty much every other American who's at all different from them (I am NOT exaggerating this--that's what he said.) It didn't seem to bother him that the Afghans were in the middle of bloody inter-tribal warfare that has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years there. :rolleyes:

He says humorous and ironic things, but he's dead serious.

artherd

May 16, 2004, 01:40 AM

The best argument for coming out as a pro-gun nut relates to the need for an adjustment to the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party. For too long, both parties have treated the Constitution like a Chinese menu. Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Democrats rail against the states rights expressed by the Tenth Amendment and absurdly argue that the placement of a comma reflects the founders' original intent to limit gun ownership to members of 18th century militias. Aside from its fundamental intellectual dishonesty, our politicians' take-some-leave-others attitude deviates from most citizens' belief that every section of the Constitution holds equal weight.

I really liked this part.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scary Op/Ed piece on Yahoo." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!